From: Cory Nelson (phrosty_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-02 07:24:13
Please don't take offense when I say this, but "for historical
reasons" set off my alarm for sloppy code.
I don't claim to know C++ or Boost better than others here so if there
is a better valid reason please enlighten me. If there is no way to
have a negative index (this is not an array, after all..), why give
the option? Doing things the wrong way just because thats how they
were done before isn't good.
I almost didn't reply for fear of setting off an arrogant developer.
Not saying you are one of them, but there are an unfortunate amount in
the OSS community and I have stepped on enough toes to learn.
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:57:14 -0000, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > this will cause compile warnings in VC7.1 with the "detect 64bit
> > issues" flag set:
> > boost::match_results<string::const_iterator> what;
> > for(boost::match_results<string::const_iterator>::size_type i=0;
> > i<what.size(); i++)
> > results.push_back(string(what[i].first, what[i].second));
> > warning C4267: 'argument' : conversion from 'size_t' to 'int',
> > possible loss of data
> > it seems the operator takes an int for index instead of size_type.
> For historical reasons a negative index is permitted - so for now I'm not
> going to change this to a size_type argument - although if there's any other
> way to suppress the warning I'll happily use it.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Cory Nelson http://www.int64.org
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk